NEW YORK, June 7 (Reuters) - An associate who said he was duped into believing he would make partner -- but then didn't -- cannot recoup punitive damages, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In 2005, Patrick Hoeffner filed a $100 million suit against Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, alleging that he was passed up for partnership despite assurances that his promotion was guaranteed if he stayed at the firm.

Affirming a trial court's decision, the Appellate Division, First Department held that Hoeffner could not recover punitive damages because he had failed to show that the alleged false promises evidenced "such a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty as to imply criminal indifference."

Hoeffner joined Orrick in 1999.

In 2002, he was working on a high-profile patent litigation with former Orrick partners Larry Goodwin and Peter Bucci. According to Hoeffner's complaint, the case was "worth millions of dollars of revenue to the firm." When Goodwin and Bucci jumped ship to Chadbourne & Parke, three of Orrick's intellectual property partners concocted a scheme to keep Hoeffner from leaving and taking the valuable litigation with him, Hoeffner claimed.

Two of the partners allegedly told Hoeffner that if they put him up for partner, the firm's executive committe would "rubber stamp" the decision.

Hoeffner said he relied on this assurance and subsequent promises, including an e-mail exchange, when he passed up offers from Chadbourne and McDermott, Will & Emery.

In 2004, Hoeffner was asked to leave the firm and allegedly told that he was not partnership material. The following year, he sued Orrick and the intellectual property partners.

In 2009, the Appellate Division, First Department held that Hoeffner was not entitled to the amount he would have made if he had become a partner at Chadbourne and was limited to the difference between the compensation he was receiving at Orrick and what he would have received had he left for Chadbourne.

Last year, Justice Fried ruled that Hoeffner was not entitled to punitive damages.

The First Department agreed.

"Cases involving mere fraudulent misrepresentations to induce a party to accept an employment agreement, do not warrant imposition of punitive damages," the panel wrote.

According to a brief filed by Orrick, the case is now worth a maximum of $60,000.

Douglas Wigdor, who is representing Hoeffner, said he was disappointed with the court's ruling and was considering seeking leave to appeal. Wigdor, of Thompson Wigdor, said this suit was not about money, but about his client's right to tell his story in court.

Andrew Gordon of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who represents Orrick, said the firm was pleased with the decision. "We continue to believe that Orrick did nothing wrong," he added.

Justices Angela Mazzarelli, John Sweeny, Karla Moskowitz, Dianne Renwick and Nelson Roman sat on the panel.

For Hoeffner: Douglas Wigdor of Thompson Wigdor

For Orrick: Andrew Gordon of Paul, Weiss

The appellate case is Hoeffner v. Orrick, Appellate Division, First Department , no. 5289.

(Reporting by Noeleen Walder)